/m/prospects

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

48. Nolan Arenado, 3B, Colorado: Make-up and maturity concerns may have helped magnify Arenado’s modest 2012 season. He’ll turn 22 in April, has an impact bat if he realizes his potential and is ready for triple-A.

Arenado is having a strong spring, after having hit four homers in three games last week. He could very well be the Rockies' third baseman this year.

Arenado had a 105 wOBA+ in Double-A last year and has no time in Triple-A. I don't care how good his spring is, if he is your starting 3B, you are in some trouble. That being said he does provide great bat control, but no way is he ready.

If I simply merged the top 2 (which I personally judge as industry standards), does anyone think I would lose much insight by NOT incorporating the findings of the rest? Does anyone find speacial insight from any of the others?

For a site of math geeks, I'm surprised that this egregious error has gone uncorrected for so long. That would have to be TL AND ten dogs or TL himself**, to suck up the ELEVEN places from 14 to 24, inclusive.

** If Lasorda is truly dumber than 10 dogs, then maybe he can use up all 11 places.

Actually, #6 is Gerrit Cole. The Mariners' top prospect, Mike Zunino, shows up at #12, with Tajuan Walker one slot behind.

Really, once you get below about 20, you're just throwing darts.

From TFA:

64. Carlos Sanchez, 2B, Chicago (AL): Probably the second most shocking ranking on list, I’m going against the field here with Sanchez — whom I doubt made any other Top 100 lists. The second baseman impresses me with his baseball skills, as well as the way he carries himself on the field. I think he gets a bit of a raw deal because he’s in the White Sox underrated system and because he doesn’t have loud tools. I truly think he’ll exceed expectations when given the opportunity.

The White Sox don't have an underrated system; it's legitimately bad.

Sanchez hasn't demonstrated the ability to drive the ball much at all; he has three homeruns and 54 extra-base hits in 1151 minor league PAs. He's going to have to show that major league pitchers won't knock the bat out of his hands.

Sanchez hasn't demonstrated the ability to drive the ball much at all; he has three homeruns and 54 extra-base hits in 1151 minor league PAs. He's going to have to show that major league pitchers won't knock the bat out of his hands.

Yea, but on the other hand at 21 years old pretty much everyone agrees his glove is ready now -- above average at 2nd and passable at SS. Yea he lacks power but his hit skill is excellent and as a 20 year old he showed it hitting 322/378/403 across 3 levels, mostly high A and AA. In a tough hitting environment at AA Birmingham he had an 886 OPS, granted it was average driven in a small sample -- but in the non silly ball era middle infielders that can hit 290/340/400 are a valued commodity.

Sanchez seems a favorite of saber and traditional types alike. The biggest knock on him is lack of power and track record. Sickels has him at a "B" FWIW.

I don't pretend to know if he's the 64th best prospect in baseball (and the fangraphs article alludes to such by placing fellow White Sox Courtney Hawkins one better) but Sanchez isn't just some toolsy kid this guy saw play once. Yea it's dart throwing but that's true for more than just Sanchez.

If I simply merged the top 2 (which I personally judge as industry standards), does anyone think I would lose much insight by NOT incorporating the findings of the rest? Does anyone find speacial insight from any of the others?

There are way, way more out there than that. I've seen a few of the "compilation" spreadsheets, and they are legion. The vast majority of these lists are, however, completely worthless. They are just different people on the internet providing no specific insight. The only ones I consider worthwhile:

3: Law: Single voice rankings, based heavily on in-person scouting; not as reliable or comprehensive as the other two, but gives a useful perspective

The other lists are basically redundant:

BP: At this point, basically just a poor man's BA; the list is crowd sourced among the (mostly) random prospect guys BP has assembled, guys who aren't journalists and don't have the same sources as BA. I thought Goldstein's unique voice and massive contact list added something unique to the discussion, but they haven't given Parks that same control of the top 100 list, and he doesn't have the experience or the same level of industry sources anyway. The team by team write-ups are more useful and this list could be more relevant again in the future.

MLB.com: I think the methodology still comes from some form of scout polling, but that has led to weird lists. Most scouts have specific coverage areas and don't see every prospect, so while they have good individual info, ranking them all isn't exactly within their scope. Again, the methodology isn't 100% clear. Essentially, though, you are getting the crowd sourcing of BA, but put together somewhat oddly by a single editor.

SBNation community list: What random internet people think; wholly derivative, and prone to over exuberance on a number of guys. Better than some other random internet lists due to crowd sourcing.

FanGraphs: Who cares? I have no idea what they claim to be adding to the discussion, or why we should value their opinion on prospect info.

Rotoworld/Rotoanalysis/BaseballHQ/Bleacherreport/BullpenBanter/TopProspectAlert/Scout.com/ScoutingBook/etc.: Mostly just noise. None of these have made a compelling case as to why their opinions should matter.

BP has some pretty good guys, although losing Goldstein hurts. Hulet's also pretty solid for FanGraphs, and Jonathan Mayo drives MLB.com's effort. Yeah, they may be a cut below BA and Sickels, but I'd group them with Law on the next tier. I think there's some value in almost every such list, especially in identifying potential sleepers.

#38: The success rate for players like Sanchez, whose offensive value is almost entirely based on hits and walks, is pretty low. Every so often you get someone like Luis Castillo who can fashion a career out of that skill set, but in this day and age it's pretty rare.

BP has some pretty good guys, although losing Goldstein hurts. Hulet's also pretty solid for FanGraphs, and Jonathan Mayo drives MLB.com's effort. Yeah, they may be a cut below BA and Sickels, but I'd group them with Law on the next tier. I think there's some value in almost every such list, especially in identifying potential sleepers.

I like reading Parks; not only is he a good writer, he has his own perspective, and I find that useful. He's similar to Law in that going and seeing a player plays a big role in his thought process. But the top 100 isn't just his list; it is the consensus opinion of the whole "prospect staff," most of whom have not shown any reason for me to care what they think.

Mayo is a journalist who aggregates scouting info. I've never gotten the sense that he's adding anything unique of his own (not necessarily a bad thing). That's not worthless, but it's redundant if you already have BA. His rankings end up fairly different than other outlets, but different doesn't mean useful. Again, the individual team writeups are more interesting, since it can clue you in on guys that have piqued some scout's imagination somewhere, but we are just talking about the top 100. When it comes to value ranking my prospects in my preposterously deep dynasty league, those top 100 lists don't really add anything beyond BA and Sickels.

Hulet... I've been reading him off and on since his Baseball Analyst days, and I've never found him particularly useful. I mean, his info is fine, I suppose, but it has always struck me as just a watered down version of what you get elsewhere, even in his team writeups. He's like the megablocks of prospect guys. He's fine, I guess, if that's all you have; but if you have legos, there is really no point to him. He's redundant.

I don't find "different" choices to be useful as sleeper pick unless the guy naming them as a sleeper has some cachet. I mean, anybody can just throw some crap at the wall and see what sticks.